ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
November 2018 Call Audio
, 12/08 – San Diego

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

National

OK: Police Oppose New Sex Offender Residency Restrictions [video]

[newson6.com – 11/1/18]

Tulsa police say that the new laws will prevent registrants from living in the entire city of Tulsa.

The law affects the entire state [1:35].

Watch the video

 

Join the discussion

  1. TS

    Looks like Oklahoma (where the winds comes sweepin’ down the plains) has some some internal opposition to the law coming up to be implemented

    Oklahoma of all places where licenses are marked for registrants. Comments on this page are interesting too.

  2. AO

    There have to be repercussions for legislatures that make terrible laws. Our system cannot continue to be abused like this, all in an effort to get re-elected. And that’s all this is. You can’t say that it’s all for public safety when those explicitly in charge of public safety say this will result in the opposite effect, especially when there’s real data to back it up. I firmly believe legislature need to provide impractical evidence along side whatever law they want to introduce when it comes to directly effecting individuals like this.

    • ReadyToFight

      @AO
      I completely agree. More needs to be done on our behalf in regards to our offense vs defense. Keep these Politicians feet to the fire. Possibly more importantly we as a group need to move as one.

    • Chris f

      The Constitution and federalist papers show our founding fathers were prepared for politicians enflaming a mob and creating legislature against unpopular and politically powerless people for the politician’s own gain. That is what the bills of attainder clause should prevent. Unfortunately, even appointed judges won’t do their job and uphold the constitution like they swore to.

    • David

      Once I was a snowflake❄. Now I’m a rattlesnake! 🐍 I feel special! 😊
      The new law says an RSO can’t live within 500 feet of any victim of a sex crime. Any victim of any sex crime ….. from any time? Even an unreported sex crime from decades ago?? Hmmm. Vague at best. And it’s a true act of kindness that Mr. LEO is trying to save the dumbass lawmakers from their ignorant selves! Good luck to him!

  3. AJ

    I see a few potential problems with what they’re doing.

    First, they outright admit they’re effectively imposing a city-wide banishment. See you in court on that one, Tulsa.

    Second, it would seem the public–or at least a RC affected by the law–should have access to the data the city is using to determine where I may live (either freely or by a FOIA). That means they will be giving away where victims of sex offenses live. Ooops, I’m guessing the victims may not be so happy about that. And if the city refuses to release it, it may be a case of see you in court, Tulsa. Without being able to see the data used, how can I be sure I’m not being indiscriminately targeted and lied to?

    Third, according to the reporter at the end of the story, it only applies to RCs who move in, the others are grandfathered. Umm, that would seem to be an Equal Protection violation. See you in court on that one, too, Tulsa.

    • Timmmy

      I think it was OK which has in their Constitution about retroactive laws, and a recent court case about applying registration laws retroactively. Of course you just cannot ban someone from living anywhere at all.

    • CR

      @AJ – “Third, according to the reporter at the end of the story, it only applies to RCs who move in, the others are grandfathered. Umm, that would seem to be an Equal Protection violation.”

      Grandfather clauses are common with residency restrictions, but they are actually common with a lot of laws. Where used, grandfather clauses prevent retroactive effects of a law.

      In the case of this law, even though applicability to an individual is based on their status as a registrant or on their past or future conviction for a sexual offense, grandfathering registrants who have already established residency in what would now become a prohibited zone makes the law prospective in operation.

      I’m sure this new residency restriction is unconstitutional law, but not because of equal protection. At least, not under rational basis scrutiny.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        I’m clear about grandfathering laws, but to my knowledge they’ve been limited to allowing a previously-granted privilege to continue after it’s been otherwise curtailed. (I fondly remember being grandfathered by my State when it raised the drinking age.) I would like to know of a case where a right has been grandfathered, as it kind of goes against the definition of “right.” Also, the conditions under which one resides is a wholly different type of restriction than whether one is allowed to reside.

        For argument’s sake, can a city impose residency restrictions on a select neighborhood, grandfathering all felons currently living within its boundary but prohibiting felons from moving in? Can they do it to a city block? To a certain side of the street?

        You mentioned rational basis scrutiny. I trust you realize the three levels of review (rational, intermediate, strict) are used in Equal Protection cases.

        If not Equal Protection, what constitutional element do you see as being violated here? The only other spot that comes to my mind is Privileges or Immunities (PI). The flaw with using PI is that after the Slaughter-House cases, it was subsumed into Equal Protection (equality functions) or Due Process (substantive functions). The only way I see a PI challenge even starting to work would be if one migrated from another State, in which case Saenz could apply. However, the State would certainly, and easily, argue that the migrant *is* being treated like others in the State, because someone moving intrastate to Tulsa would be equally affected.

        P.S. Re: the Haymond. I woke up to what you were saying right after hitting “Post Comment.” But it was already off into the ether by then! (I so miss the old Edit/Delete capabilities.)

  4. Dustin

    The reporter and Sgt she spoke with got the new law wrong – it mostly referred to loitering, not residence. The error was probably deliberate to make a more compelling story. More exciting than “New SO loitering ban; no real change.”

    Cops complaining about being overworked is nothing new either. Would like to see a reporter ask what specific value the registry has and watch him dance around the notion the it would be so much more dangerous without it.

  5. Eric

    This is unfortunate for now, but in the long run it will be good because these dirty politicians harassing and persecuting people on the registry can only go so far before it explodes. Here you have law enforcement saying this is terrible. Once again, as we see all across the country: the registry is a dismal failure and makes the situation worse. The only ones that need to know are LE on a private data base, and I doubt they really even need to know once a person is off probation. People convicted of most all other crimes reoffend at a much higher rate.

    • Dustin

      LE in this case wasn’t criticizing the registry. He was only complaining of the new residence restriction, as he mistakenly understood it.

      An LE-only registry is just as useless and unnecessary as the public one. There’s nothing on it that isn’t in the National Crime Information Center. Every state has a counterpart (in fact, every state feeds the NCIC) and access to it. Every law enforcement agency accesses both as a matter of routine in all investigations and booking.

      Can anyone find one single case anywhere, prior to Megan’s Law, where the LE-only registry prevented or had a role in investigating a crime of any kind? From what I’ve read about California’s pre-ML registry, it seems they started it because it sounded good in theory but turned out to be worthless in practice, and kept it because no one wrote it out of the code or SOP. That shouldn’t be surprising in hindsight; the FACT (as in proven by empirical evidence vs. popular perception) that those convicted of SOs rarely commit more after release from prison had always been the norm.

      • Eric

        @Dustin…Is your goal on this board to criticize and find fault with what other posters write? It appears so, and I don’t see how that is going to benefit us as a group.

        • R M

          @Eric: “Is your goal on this board to criticize and find fault with what other posters write? It appears so, and I don’t see how that is going to benefit us as a group.”. ????

        • Dustin

          My goal on this or any other board is to criticize and find fault with the registry in all its forms, its purported uses, and those that support them with the overall objective to end the registry in its entirety. That includes LE only registries and those using tier systems; equally useless, oppressive, and do nothing to accomplish their stated purpose. As I’ve pointed out on other posts, a chainsaw will never fix a flat tire.

          For the sake of argument, if the registry were abolished tomorrow and all LE agencies were told they could rebuild them if they chose from NCIC and their state counterparts, few (if any) would. Give them any amount of money for the purpose and I guaran-damn-tee you that money would be spent elsewhere.

          I agree with R M and am equally confused about what you (apparently) took personally. So I asked a few questions regarding the validity of an LE-only registry to see if there was any value that I’m not seeing. It appears your response is to complain that they were asked. I don’t see how that benefits us as a group.

      • AJ

        “[T]he FACT (as in proven by empirical evidence vs. popular perception) that those convicted of SOs rarely commit more after release from prison had always been the norm.”
        —–
        I recall about 18-24 months ago someone on here posting some police statistics about this crime and that one, and how low recidivism was for sex offenders….then ended the post by noting it was from NYPD back in the 30s or 20s or something. The point being that even back then, the data showed “frightening and high” to be utter nonsense. If someone has that piece or can find that posting again, I’d enjoy seeing it.

  6. David

    Once I was a snowflake❄. Now I’m a rattlesnake! 🐍 I feel special! 😊
    The new law says an RSO can’t live within 500 feet of any victim of a sex crime. Any victim of any sex crime ….. from any time? Even an unreported sex crime from decades ago?? Hmmm. Vague at best. And it’s a true act of kindness that Mr. LEO is trying to save the dumbass lawmakers from their ignorant selves! Good luck to him!

    • Eric Knight

      “Mr. LEO” is not as concerned about the fates of sex offenders, their children, and their families, but about the nightmarish red tape his officers will have to follow, and possibly worried (justifiably) about lawsuits up the yin yang.

  7. Eric Knight

    My colleague has a saying that he coined over a decade ago: “The purpose of all sex offender legislation is to return all sex offenders, no matter the level or date of their offense, to prison for the rest of their life.” Pretty much sums up this sequence in Tulsa.

    • Dustin

      @ Eric: That is absolutely correct. There is no other explanation for such far-reaching (and often self-conflicting) laws.

  8. Gerald

    Yesterday, I made a comment that (I believed) was polite yet contradictory and today it has been removed. So much for freedom of speech?
    BTW here was my post:
    The police and the public knowing where they are doesn’t make people safer but better access to stable housing, employment, and services could. The analogy of rattlesnakes coiled to strike is an ignorant one and in-line with bogus fear mongering.
    If people are continually shamed and punished despite changing, then what does that teach people about owning their mistakes and evolving into a better person?

  9. Anonymous

    Don’t want RSOs living in your city? Abolish the registry. There will immediately be zero RSOs living in your city.

  10. GF

    So I just got done reading this and it has a 2000 foot residency restriction for all RC’s. That’s absolutely ridiculous it includes day cares and a hools and parks
    So the whole city will be off limits.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *